I believe that the greater the genius of the composer, the more natural, quick and intuitive he is at writing works that can be analyzed in great detail by mere compositional mortals. Is the composer conscious of the form he is writing? I believe that he is, but that he thinks about it so naturally and quickly that it would only take seconds to write something that would take others much longer to create. We see this when a great athletes’ form is analyzed by commentators. For example, when tennis announcers discuss the serve of Pete Sampras or Roger Federer. Teaching pros may be much better at analyzing the wonderful form an athletic genius than the genious himself. A world-class athlete or composer thinks of these things so easily and quickly that a given work can be un-complicated to them, simple to us when we hear it, but complicated to us when we examine its’ many layers of compositional achievement.

df

Dan, I don’t think I would say for a moment that Dykes was thinking specifically theoretically when he wrote NICAEA. No doubt he was letting the line go where it wanted based on the text.

But then, as you say, it is interesting and helpful to go back and analyze WHY the text wanted to go there, and I think we can discern objective reasons for that.

Wouldn’t you say that after you write a tune, and let it go where it wants, you can go back and discern objective strengths to that tune even though you didn’t necessarily put them there on purpose?

I think that’s what Tim’s doing here, and I see great value to that.

Olive Branch and apology accepted! Thank you!

I don’t disagree with anything you say about propriety. I find it to be a little like beauty and excellence, though: when pressed for reasons about why this music is appropriate, but that music is not, there’s no answer that satisfies except to go right back to the musical meaning of the sound constructs. Makujina has said, and I think rightly so, that the entire argument boils down to musical meaning.

I do agree that attached, or associative, meanings exist and can be just as strong as bioacoustic sound referents. But, and I think this is where Makujina has done an invaluable service, the Bible points to the primacy of the bioacoustic semiotic model. In the second edition he heads the section on p. 318, “Primacy of the Bioacoustic System” and proceeds to argue convincingly from logical, aesthetic, musicological, and biblical perspectives, that though the associative model can and should exist, the bioacoustic model is prime.

I agree with you, Dan, that our approaches are complimentary. I simply find that the stylistic/functional/proprietary arguments don’t end the discussion as firmly as the musical meaning arguments do. Most who disagree with the musical meaning arguments after the foundational arguments are presented merely revert to the notion that music is neutral, which is simply indefensible biblically. This is why I would encourage you, Dan, to ‘take up arms’ in the musical meaning discussion - considering what combinations of musical elements speak most clearly regarding particular affections. I think it requires a serious study not only of the musical elements, but also of the higher level emotions - both complex, multifaceted topics.

I find myself too often ready to use the word ‘absolute’ in describing the way in which music communicates. This is probably a combination of zeal and sloppiness. I think it’s more correct to say that (within the bioacoustic system) music communicates objectively within a pretty narrowly defined range of emotions. It’s impossible, for instance, to confuse musical fear with musical triumph. These emotions are at different ends of the spectrum, and as such, are expressed entirely differently in sound.

I chose Bach for my example not to stack the deck, but only because his music is where I’ve had the most recent experience in examining the two versions of composer manuscript. I recently taught a class where we examined the 1720 and 1723 versions of the 2-part Inventions. Our class actually took a trip to see the original manuscript of the Notebook for W. F. Bach at Yale. It was incredible. I fully admit ignorance of the compositional process for particular individuals. Only where there are revisions or where a composer has written about his compositional process (as you just did, Dan - thank you!) can we gain insight into the method of composing. My wife has composed and published not a few sacred works and hymns, and she describes her manner of composing very similar to yours. In many ways, as a performer, it doesn’t matter to me what the compositional process is - only the result. I examine, for the purposes of interpretation and performance, the finished work - after the fact. Is it beautiful? Is it excellent? Does it move me? Does it edify?

But when pressed, I find this foundational level of analysis the most revealing and compelling. How else can we give our assertions validity when we assess congruity of text with music, or defend propriety of style for a particular function?

Thanks for another provocative conversation, Dan and Scott.

In Christ,

Tim

There are genres/styles that rely much more on craft than others. Obviously (Tim) you chose a pretty weighted example, in Bach. :-) That kind of composition can only happen through studied craft, no doubt. But writing a hymntune is usually much more free than that, at least at the creative stage.

I believe intuition can be a deep theoretical knowledge working in hyperspeed like sightreading, or it can simply be a great aural memory and synthesis, without the visual work or the analytical terminology. My students can improvise all sort of periods, sentences (bar forms), etc, without a lick of knowledge of terminology, or even a thought as to what gives their music unity. They simply hear what comes next, from aural memory and synthesis.
On the other hand, my more “left-brained” students who want to “engineer” every detail of their melodies, often write lousy melodies! They can prove all sorts of great motivic manipulation and design, but the melody just DOESN’T WORK. I’ve found that the best melodies are the ones that are allowed to “happen” and unfold as they “want to”, in the composer’s ear/mind. Then, after the fact, we can use analyses like these to find out WHY they work. I can’t speak for Dykes, but this is what I’ve found to be true in myself, composers I’ve read and talked to, and my students.

By personal example, I think it’s safe to say I have a pretty analytically educated musical mind- but my own compositional practice, when writing a hymntune, is probably 70% “asking the line where it wants to go” (completely subjective, even if informed by analytical knowledge or broad exposure to lots of music), and maybe 30% conscious analytical construction- usually only invoked when I can’t hear intuitively “where the line wants to go.”

One last point: when I first studied Schenkerian Analysis, it RUINED my composition for about 6 months. I was too busy trying to embed Urlinie in my melodies. I had to learn to “turn it off” while writing, and only rely on it occasionally- usually “after the fact”. To this day, I have to shut out Schenkerian thought while writing a melody. I give great attention to contour, but not to Schenker.

On the other hand, when I’m writing, say, a piece of art music for instrumental solo, I may use a much more “craft” oriented approach- with motivic devices, manipulation of sets, etc.

Think about this: If the bulk of compositional skill was simply found in a deep, lightning-quick theoretical-analytical mind, wouldn’t composition pedagogy be a lot easier? :-)

I know I’ve waxed eloquent here, but I’m probably more qualified to speak to these things, than most of the rest of what I dabble in. :-) And I’m eager to make these points, because I think many people have misconceptions about the compositional process.

2) Julian Johnson Quotes and Musical Universals.

I offer my apologies for pulling those quotes out- but my taking them from their context didn’t change their meaning, only their part in making his larger point. Let me summarize: He’s saying, in part, that people in our culture listen to music because it either matches their current mood, or pulls them toward a mood that they desire to be in. He laments that people make demands of “immediacy” of classical music, the same way that pop music gives immediacy. His point is that “classical” music, by definition, is art, created with a much different purpose than “immediacy”. Therefore, he says, it’s wrong to judge Mozart by the same criteria as Madonna- it won’t fulfill the pop aesthetic’s criteria.

My point, then, is, what he says next: the sword cuts both ways. It may be just as unhelpful to judge Madonna by Mozart’s terms. The fact that Madonna’s phrasing and form lack the sophistication of Mozart, is inherent in the style/genre.

When I read those statements, a few weeks ago, I thought of you, and when I saw this analysis posted, I couldn’t resist sharing. :-)

What it really comes down to is universals. Given your strong belief in universals, you naturally judge both musics by the same standards, on the “theoretical” plane. Because I believe universals to exist considerably less tangibly, I prefer to focus more on a stylistic-semiotic (is that a term?) analysis than the theoretical one, in terms of whether something is appropriate for worship. So Scott’s right- we just prefer to dwell on different planes for making our choices, even if our choices end up being quite similar.

Again, before I get labeled a heretic, I believe that there HAVE to be musical universals, because God is the source of all that is, including Beauty. And even though I think musical universals are hard to get at, we all agree that “attached” meanings are just as strong as any “universal” meanings- Makujina makes this point in his appendix on semiotics; Paul Jones makes that point in his appendix on musical meaning; and I’ve collected a few other sources that say the exact same thing, including (if I remember correctly) Hindemith and Copland.

So our views are probably much more complementary than contrary. (Olive Branch!) And I’m careful to tell my students that I’m open to being more fully convinced about musical universals’ tangibility or specificity.

df

Thanks for referee-ing! :)

I agree with what you’ve said about the levels of analysis - stylistic and analytical. I also agree that stylistic meaning flows from musical structure. Whether the number of composers who write intuitively vs. analytically is few or many is not such a relevant point if we understand ‘intuitive’ as containing ‘analytical’ but in hyper-speed. My speculation is that composers writing intuitively is much like performers who sight read well - the foundational skills are thoroughly engrained such that the thinking and doing of the act is so swift and replete with content that it seems intuitive both to an observer and probably even to the composer himself!

I maintain that Bach’s analytical thought process (as well as others) can clearly be seen in his revisions, though. (Read Lawrence Dreyfus’s “Bach and the Pattern of Invention” for compelling evidence and discussion.) Bach himself is quoted as having said, “I have worked hard. Every hard-working man could do the same thing that I have done.” Far from being false humility, Bach’s own writing on arriving at a suitable musical motive (what he calls the ‘invention’) indicates significant analytical thought and confirms his statement about hard work. At the same time, he was said to be able to spontaneously improvise a four-voice fugue on a new subject . I think these two modes are related and are a factor of excellence in craft.

Tim

I really do think that we’re talking about two levels of analysis focusing on two different levels of meaning, both of which are helpful and interesting. Tim’s theoretical level, in my opinion, is the lowest, most universal level. Dan’s stylistic level would be one level up, still somewhat universal, but rooted in culture and knowledge of the style. Even so, wouldn’t you agree, Dan, that stylistic meaning flows from the musical structure?

Also, I’m with you that most composers write more intuitively than theoretically, but wouldn’t you say that their genius of intuition is still founded upon universal theoretical principles and can therefore be analyzed as such? Furthermore, wouldn’t you admit that they have such intuition because those principles are inherent in the created order and thus universal?

I appreciate the quick correction. I’ve purchased the book and will look forward to reading.

I should have refused to comment on quotations taken out of context, rather than to end up falsely accusing Johnson. It’s difficult - if not impossible - to gather that he is arguing to the contrary from the limited context of the quotation in your post. Before responding, I had others read the quotation without my comment and their understanding was the same as mine.

Let this be a lesson to me! My apologies to Mr. Johnson.

Tim

We could get into all sorts of discussions, but I’m going to try to leave things there- i.e. we’ve stated our different perspectives. :-)

I DO have to defend Johnson, though, because you’re gravely misunderstanding him and falsely accusing him. He’s not saying that Mozart is outdated; his entire book argues to the contrary! He’s saying that when judged by the criteria of pop music (i.e. Madonna), Mozart is outdated and makes bad dance music.

I recommend the book heartily, so that you see the brilliant and incredibly strong context from which these quotes come, and for your own enjoyment/edification. I’m only halfway through it, but I’m seeing why it was so strongly recommended by Paul Jones and many others.

I’m thinking that Scott has read the book, as it’s been listed in bibliographies of his, somewhere…?

df

One last point about the quotations you provide:

Johnson’s assertion that Mozart is outdated doesn’t happen to reveal a bias, does it? I work with hundreds of students (all of them much younger than myself) who don’t find Mozart to be outdated. Mozart speaks to their emotions from across centuries of time and from across cultures. What kind of evidence does Johnson provide for his assertion that Mozart is outdated? Mozart uses the same 12 pitches that Madonna uses, the same harmonies, the same note values. While Johnson may believe what he’s saying about the contextualization of these elements by their ‘function,’ in reality, his contextualization only serves as a ruse. The simple fact is, Mozart uses all these elements with demonstrably more skill and craft than Madonna, and the emotions expressed in Mozart’s usage of them appeal far less often and overtly to our baser instincts - something any Christian should be concerned about.

Tim

Thanks so much for slogging through the analysis. I appreciate it very much. It really is an incredible hymn, isn’t it?!

Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been in buttressing my hyper-level bar form position. I kind of scattered the evidence around in the article because of the format I chose. It wasn’t only the half-cadence that I cited as evidence. If you’ll remember, I did account for the parallel period (actually double parallel period) understanding of the form in example 4, though I didn’t title it. In fact, in an early draft, I had used the term, but at the end deleted it since it wasn’t central to my argument, required additional explanation and in that sense misled the reader. My point is that the composition is flexible enough that the form may be understood in multiple ways, thus accommodating the text. If you listen in a worship service, no one sings the tune as a parallel period. It is much more often sung with breaths indicating the smaller bar forms by the average worshiper. Worshipers with sensitivity to the text, though, have musical support for carrying the breath through where the punctuation requires it, and Dykes made subtle changes to the melody to facilitate this (not just the half-cadence!).

I haven’t read the Johnson book, but it sounds provocative. Having not read it, I can’t comment with any degree of assurance about the quotes you give, since I don’t have a full context. But from the context I derive from what you provide, it seems to me that the author is making what Makujina calls the Pelagian assertion that musical style is immune from the effects of the Fall, and therefore exempt from judgment and discernment. Johnson is certainly incorrect when he states that Mozart and Madonna “are made of different musical materials.” Both Mozart and Madonna are made from the same four acoustical materials that God gave to all musicians from which they make music: duration, frequency, amplitude, and waveform. These elements certainly are arranged in different ways - I’ll give him that much. The various ways in which they are arranged establish the musical style each represents. But musical style (a.k.a. in Johnson’s vocabulary as “musical function”) is really nothing more than a set of expectations and probabilities within and among each of these elements. Musical styles, then, are man-made creations, all of them tainted to varying degrees with sin - like all of man’s creations. As Scott has previously so clearly pointed out: with God there are no gray areas. In the quotations you provide from Johnson, he seems to want to deny that there are musical universals. We may not always be able to see the absolutes perfectly, clearly, or at all, but they always exist in God’s eyes, and it is our responsibility to seek to discern them (Philippians 4:8). We don’t get to exclude music or musical style from our discerning, as Johnson seems to want to do. You’ll have to ask Paul Jones about his recommendation. There must be some redeeming features to be found in the book.

I think you’re right that Edwards’ comments apply equally to non-Western forms. I don’t know where I’ve ever stated or implied that beauty or excellence is exclusively Western. You know, with this sort of analysis I’m attempting to explain my claims for, “this is a beautiful hymn,” or “this is excellent and that is not.” I’m trying to distinguish from mere preference or opinion. I personally do not listen to or perform music with this kind of analysis running through my mind, and I certainly don’t believe that all composers think this way when they write. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of the analytical process going on in the minds of Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, and other greats when comparing their sketches and revisions. Not all composing is intuitive, and that’s born out by historical evidence. So I’m not sure I’d agree with your assessment of “few” composers thinking that way, since there are some pretty big ones who obviously do. Others, like Mozart, famously write with precious little revision, giving little insight into the compositional process. Analysis reveals genius in both Bach and Mozart, whether the process of composition was analytical or intuitive. I don’t claim to know whether Dykes crafted and revised this tune, or whether he simply “intuited” it. Either way, analysis concretely reveals that his results are compelling. Analysis is an additional means we have to examine the worth of the piece. It’s only a tool, but I think it’s a valid tool.

Tim

My main reason for posting, though, is to ask, in light of the two analyses you’ve posted here, what you think of this quote from Julian Johnson (”Who Needs Classical Music?”), whose book has been labelled “brilliant” by none other than Paul Jones.

“Musical practice today reinforces the false assumption on which it is based- that all musics fulfill the same function and can be meaningfully judged by the same criteria.”

And later on…

“…Mozart and Madonna….are both “music” just as Schindler’s List and Toy Story are both films. But just as these two films do different things because they are made differently, so do Mozart and Madonna, and for the same reason….they are made of different musical materials that are organized in different ways. Neither is understood by the criteria of the other: Mozart is outdated and makes for poor dance music, and Madonna’s music lacks the sophistication of phrasing and form found in Mozart.”

This sword cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

You know that my slight discomfort is with your methodology more than your conclusions. I believe that musical universals exist, but I’d rather focus on what a particular song’s style does or doesn’t do/mean/say/etc, rather than try to make universals more clear and measurable than they really are. (Edwards’ thoughts strike me as equally applicable to other styles besides Western hymnody or even Western art music, even if they are comprehensive.)

Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading your analysis- good work! I remember first analyzing this hymn after learning about part-writing and voiceleading in freshman theory, and being blown away!

df

I appreciate the nice comments you made on your website about the analysis of the NICAEA hymn tune. I have some questions about some of the other comments you made, though.

You assert that the analysis is not biblical. In what way or ways do you think it is not?

Why do you state that an analysis such as this would not work for other styles? Why would it not? All music contains the elements that were investigated here (melody, rhythm, etc.). Did you see the other analysis for a praise chorus by Scott Roley of Indelible Grace? If not, you might want to take a look at it here:

http://religiousaffectionsmini.....-be-shafer

In what way do you believe cultural judgments were made in the analysis? Can you identify some examples?

Finally, though I don’t know the GnR tune you mention, I’d be glad to take a look at it to see how it compares biblically against a fine tune like NICAEA.

Thanks, Mike.

Tim